With Djurdjevic's art, it's hard to guess whether it's inspired by her own experiences as a victim, a perp, both, or neither, but I did find it had a creepily "erotic" (exploitative) feel to it.
Q: Who is your biggest influence, both art and non-art related
A: For me very important is passion for work, of course some of them are more important then others, for sure German philosophy like Friedrich Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Schiller, writers like Kafka, Bulgakov, Bela Hamvas, David Bowie…
Q: How do you dream up with your wacky ideas? What is your creation process?
A:I read a lot, from junky novels to pure art novels, am addicted to TV who works 24 hours per day, I hardly watch but I need to have it in the room, maybe it is compilation of my thoughts that I collect through ordinary day like seeing some old man struggling with his poverty and starting to fade from the face of earth without being seen at all, or seeing another victim of paedophilia for this and other subjects unfortunately I didn’t need any imagination. Just a pure reality.
With Djurdjevic's art, it's hard to guess whether it's inspired by her own experiences as a victim, a perp, both, or neither, but I did find it had a creepily "erotic" (exploitative) feel to it.
Q: Who is your biggest influence, both art and non-art related
A: For me very important is passion for work, of course some of them are more important then others, for sure German philosophy like Friedrich Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Schiller, writers like Kafka, Bulgakov, Bela Hamvas, David Bowie…
Q: How do you dream up with your wacky ideas? What is your creation process?
A:I read a lot, from junky novels to pure art novels, am addicted to TV who works 24 hours per day, I hardly watch but I need to have it in the room, maybe it is compilation of my thoughts that I collect through ordinary day like seeing some old man struggling with his poverty and starting to fade from the face of earth without being seen at all, or seeing another victim of paedophilia for this and other subjects unfortunately I didn’t need any imagination. Just a pure reality.
I felt like guruilla about Djurdjevic's art, I must confess. While at the same time very impressed with her obvious technical skills (the layman I am)... They are certainly uncomfortable, but I have noticed a certain weird, reactionary impulse within myself regarding art, with this whole Pizzagate thing. Art is supposed to be uncomfortable for chrissakes. I used to hold that as self-evident. But I guess the complicating factor is the growing certainty about a global, high-level pedophilia network among the high & mighty... there is subversive and then there's... well, depraved, frankly. People are into depraved shit that should not be abided. Where to draw the line?
I somehow have the feeling the someone like Hunter S. Thompson tried to gauge that throughout the whole of his career. He seemed to be able to stick to the side of the angels, more or less.
Anyway, thanks for the interview snippet, Wombat... She has absolutely succeeded in evoking a very believable nightmare vision of the world as generally hostile to children & innocence.
-I don't like hoodlums. -That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
guruilla » 24 Nov 2016 11:29 wrote:I haven't watched the video, but it's probably inevitable that people get confused when it comes to distinguishing between survivor art that's an essential means for a person to resolve their experiences, and art that sensationalizes, diminishes or exploits survivors' experiences (art which could also be done by survivors); and when/if abusers themselves use the art for their own titillation, or whatever, while this in no way implicates the artists who did it, it does compromise the work in other people's eyes, and there's probably no way around that. Noble's work is very obviously (to me) in the former category and there's nothing sensationalist or titillating about it. It's also pretty hard to see how abusers would get a kick out of it, unless they just enjoy being reminded of their "work." With Djurdjevic's art, it's hard to guess whether it's inspired by her own experiences as a victim, a perp, both, or neither, but I did find it had a creepily "erotic" (exploitative) feel to it. It looked like drawn records of crime scenes to me, "snuff art," and it was all-too-easy for me to imagine how perpetrators would "enjoy" having those sorts of reminders on their walls, for everyone to see, like (literal?) kill trophies.
You're asking me to pontificate on what appears to me to be an orchestrated effort to sully through association what I've spent 30 years of my life doing.
The video author is not confused, she took a great deal of time to research and create the visuals, she is putting out deliberate disinformation.
Your reading of Djurdjevic's art is yours alone, that is the function of art, it reflects what we bring to it. It is not a vehicle through which we are able to read the mind of the artist, it is a vehicle through which we come to know our own mind and experience. If you propose to construct some sort of objective evaluation system that allows you to detect the intent, as well as judge the character, of the artist in all cases, you might as well go straight to the front of the line of the autocrats who would designate and ban anything they view as degenerate art.
Here is what Djurdjevic said about the origins of imagery:
A:I read a lot, from junky novels to pure art novels, am addicted to TV who works 24 hours per day, I hardly watch but I need to have it in the room, maybe it is compilation of my thoughts that I collect through ordinary day like seeing some old man struggling with his poverty and starting to fade from the face of earth without being seen at all, or seeing another victim of paedophilia for this and other subjects unfortunately I didn’t need any imagination. Just a pure reality.
You're condemning a survivor of sexual abuse for improperly expressing her own pain. To me, that constitutes yet another violation of her.
Because she is a famous artist and you or anyone wondering about her inspiration can easily invest a few minutes to go read what she herself says about the work. I'm sorry but, it is just plain dumb to speculate when the information is right in front of you.
Stemming from her interest in the physical, emotional, and psychological aspects of pain and fear, Bourgeois was drawn to the arch of hysteria as theorized and represented by the nineteenth-century neurologist Jean Martin Charcot (1825-1893). While working at the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, Charcot sought to represent hysteria by documenting the performances of his female patients. The physical tension of the hysterical arch - an intense muscular contraction, resulting in immobility and paralysis of the limbs - is emblematic of an equally extreme emotional state. Bourgeois makes this highly vulnerable position even more so by suspending her male figure from the ceiling. In choosing to represent him in an attitude traditionally associated with the female, the artist transgresses the social and sexual roles assigned to women, challenging the misconception of hysteria as a female malady.
This is the road you'd lead us down. This is a comment I received in response to an attempt to urge caution when assigning too much meaning to works of art related to Pizzagate.
No.... "a group of people whose job it is to explore every aspect of the human experience, from the sublime to the bestial, through gesture and symbol." should never ever ever ever ever EVER involve hurting children....never. You can't blur the lines of good and evil under the guise of art because then literally anything goes. This is some sick shit that is appearing more and more real with every passing minute...and if it's real then it needs to stop immediately, and the "art" that accompanies it should be dug out like a root canal to make sure there's no stragglers.
That would include me and my life's work, dug out like a root canal, with no consideration whatsoever of any other complicating factor. No thanks.
Wombaticus Rex » Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:48 pm wrote:maybe it is compilation of my thoughts that I collect through ordinary day like seeing some old man struggling with his poverty and starting to fade from the face of earth without being seen at all, or seeing another victim of paedophilia for this and other subjects unfortunately I didn’t need any imagination. Just a pure reality.
Interesting, thanks. Has she spoken more about how and when she experienced that "pure reality"?
Project Willow wrote:You're asking me to pontificate on what appears to me to be an orchestrated effort to sully through association what I've spent 30 years of my life doing.
You're taking this personally as an artist. Understandable, but not really necessary or helpful.
Project Willow wrote:The video author is not confused, she took a great deal of time to research and create the visuals, she is putting out deliberate disinformation.
Go back and read what I wrote, please. I was referring to the confusion of people seeing the art in the context of Pizzagate, not of the artists. Still, that you are denying the possibility that a survivor might suffer from confusion is a bit bizarre.
Project Willow wrote:You're condemning a survivor of sexual abuse for improperly expressing her own pain. To me, that constitutes yet another violation of her.
I said I found it creepy, and that I could see how abusers might want it on their wall as reminders of their victims' suffering, How is that condemning the artist? I don't like the art, true, but that's neither here nor there.
Project Willow wrote:Because she is a famous artist and you or anyone wondering about her inspiration can easily invest a few minutes to go read what she herself says about the work. I'm sorry but, it is just plain dumb to speculate when the information is right in front of you.
My bad; I misunderstood & thought you were referring to the Bourgeoisie, not to a specific artist.
You do seem to have a double standard around artists, as if somehow they are given a free pass when it comes to any hint of complicity with ritual abuse. What about Genesis Porrige, Kenneth Anger, or Majestic Ape? Do they get a free pass too? How about Graham Ovenden?
(I'm not interested in condemning anyone by the way, not even the perps; only in applying the same standard of intuition, logic and rigor to all possibilities, no matter how personally challenging.)
Project Willow wrote:This is the road you'd lead us down.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
Apologies for coming off harsh in my comments above.
Am I promoting, fetishizing or celebrating torture in the below "work"? (I put it in scare quotes because it really never moved beyond the status of experiment, in both content and medium.)
What if you saw the video and had no idea I had made it, or came across it out of context?
If a social media storm correctly identified some element of power taunting the world with it's methodology and made a thing out of that, what would those same powerful people do? Would they sit back and concede that the game was up? What would you do? To make that imaginative leap, I'd roll up my sleeves and get in there to muddy the water in any way I could. I'd have the loss of my prestige, my power and perhaps my life to motivate me. So, how would I go about that?
Bearing those questions in mind, how to sort the wheat from the chaff?
RE: the art, one thing to consider is not just whether the individual artists are necessarily complicit, as an artist, that might not be the main issue. In years gone by I've done enough bizarre commissions because I needed the money. (Although admittedly not as bizarrely symbolic as some of these.) There are multiple scenario's I can imagine for these bodies of work coming into existence, many of them innocent and or cathartic. In my view, the more interesting question is for the collectors and their seeming preferences. What motivates them. Were many of the works we've seen commissioned and if so to a specific brief? If so, for what purpose? Most of this is circumstantial, as with many of the topics discussed at RI, but this one is compellingly so.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings This he said to me "The greatest thing You'll ever learn Is just to love And be loved In return"
guruilla » 24 Nov 2016 12:30 wrote:You're taking this personally as an artist. Understandable, but not really necessary or helpful.
The entire point of my comment was to preface my other comments with a yes, I'm taking this personally, read on with the warning in mind. That to me is the very definition of helpful. But I do feel threatened, whether necessary or helpful, to myself or anyone else, is immaterial, it just is what it is for the moment.
guruilla » 24 Nov 2016 12:30 wrote:You do seem to have a double standard around artists, as if somehow they are given a free pass when it comes to any hint of complicity with ritual abuse. What about Genesis Porrige, Kenneth Anger, or Majestic Ape? Do they get a free pass too? How about Graham Ovenden?
Not at all. Do you have proof that any of those artists is intentionally promoting or celebrating their complicity in ritual abuse through their work? Do they explicitly state this in their manifestos? Otherwise, you're making the same subjective presumptions about character and intent that you were of the other artists we discussed. I have no problem whatsoever criticizing their works on a number of bases, including any deleterious impact on audiences, but I have no illusions that this would be my own subjective judgement and certainly doesn't constitute some objective, collectively actionable standard in law or any other means of social censure.
On the wall in his office at Hillary Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters, campaign chairman John Podesta has an oil painting on loan from his lobbyist brother, who is an avid art collector. The image shows two men hunched over a dining room table, bearing knives and forks. On the table lays a man in a suit, who looks vaguely like Podesta. “It’s better to be the guy with the fork,” Podesta quips to his colleagues, if they ask about the image, “than the guy on the table.”
John Podesta, Center for American Progress: “I am going to my condo in Truckee [Calif.], like I do every year — will sit on my porch and do conference calls 50 feet from where the Donner Party ate each other.”
Truckee is not exactly a destination spot, as it's most interesting feature is the one very unfortunate historical event.
This is not taken to mean anything other than the fact that John Podesta is perhaps deeply fascinated with cannibalism.
Harvey » 24 Nov 2016 13:03 wrote: RE: the art, one thing to consider is not just whether the individual artists are necessarily complicit, as an artist, that might not be the main issue. In years gone by I've done enough bizarre commissions because I needed the money. (Although admittedly not as bizarrely symbolic as some of these.) There are multiple scenario's I can imagine for these bodies of work coming into existence, many of them innocent and or cathartic. In my view, the more interesting question is for the collectors and their seeming preferences. What motivates them. Were many of the works we've seen commissioned and if so to a specific brief? If so, for what purpose? Most of this is circumstantial, as with many of the topics discussed at RI, but this one is compellingly so.
I have at least one collector who bought a number of my works several years ago whom I suspected had a rather unhealthy attachment to it. I was dead broke at the time and needed the money. Another collector who was buying up work of emerging artists simply as an investment gamble and had no feeling whatsoever for the imagery, also bought a couple pieces. I mourned the latter more than the former, as I had certainty about the patron's motivations.
The most frequently used search phrase that leads people to my art sites is "torture drawings". I presume the vast majority are motivated by voyeurism. There's nothing I can do about this. Would I make the sacrifice, to myself, and others whom it's positively affected, to stop making the work in order to avoid this? Absolutely not. I would not even consider it. What I can see clearly is a sort of reactionary movement, among liberals and the right, to condemn all work of this sort, regardless of its intent or general impact on marginalized subjects, simply because it's being coveted by perceived monsters. That's what I fear.
Am I promoting, fetishizing or celebrating torture in the below "work"? (I put it in scare quotes because it really never moved beyond the status of experiment, in both content and medium.)
What if you saw the video and had no idea I had made it, or came across it out of context?
There's nothing there that rings alarm bells for me, tho I can certainly relate to the mood and tone of it (reminds me of some "Synesthesia Cinema" videos I did a couple of years back, tho these are lighter in tone). As a contrast, here's a video by a guy I know peripherally, who I asked to be on my podcast. That was before I saw this video; after I saw it, I expressed my reservations and in the end we never did the podcast.
To be clear, I didn't see this video as evidence of the guy's involvement with torture programs, but I found it off-putting enough not to feel comfortable promoting him or his work.
I can see two main questions regarding any piece of artwork: 1) does it glorify, promote, or fetishize people's suffering (the Exceptor video ^^^ fits into this class, even tho I am pretty sure the guy didn't mean it that way). 2) Is it evidence of the artist's involvement with these things? With survivors, it gets complicated because (as seems to be the case with Djurdjevic), if an artist was a victim of these things then they themselves may be confused as to whether they are, or were, complicit with the abuses suffered, and even of whether they may have committed acts themselves (I can relate to this).
Harvey & slomo made the necessary distinction between artists & their patrons. At the same time slomo (I think) was hinting at how that relationship could itself be one of abuser to abused (MK-ULTRA as a whole organized patronage of future artists?), since patrons somewhat create the artists they patronize via commissions and the like.
The Pizzagate thing seems to play into PW's (probably well-grounded) fears about an artist-purge because it presents Podesta's taste in art as evidence of his sexual-criminal proclivities. I think this is perfectly valid, but not because it's as simple as: someone likes paintings of abused children so they are likely to be a child abuser (they may be just as likely to have been abused). It only becomes evidence in juxtaposition with other forms of evidence that do point to the latter conclusion. This can very quickly start to look like a person is being put on trial for his or her taste in art, which can then extend to the artists themselves for creating such scary stuff, and so on. I have no decent suggestion as to how to prevent people making these sorts of crazy leaps, except to say that they are based on panic fight-flight reactions & not good reasoning, so these people are probably going to be making these kinds of leaps one way or another anyway. Such kill the messenger/blame the victim leaps of emotional "logic" happen regardless of how carefully we try to protect ourselves from them, because people are only looking for something to attack once their discomfort levels become unmanageable
The main lesson here for an individual artist seems to be, be responsible. There is a fine line between turning one's suffering into art as a form of catharsis and self-transformation, and turning it into currency for others to get their kicks (and justification) from. But there always has been a fine line. Maybe losing sight of that line is one of the primary causes for the sort of "underground" abuse-culture that's emerging into view via Pizzagate (IMO).
Project Willow wrote:Do you have proof that any of those artists is intentionally promoting or celebrating their complicity in ritual abuse through their work? Do they explicitly state this in their manifestos? Otherwise, you're making the same subjective presumptions about character and intent that you were of the other artists we discussed. I have no problem whatsoever criticizing their works on a number of bases, including any deleterious impact on audiences, but I have no illusions that this would be my own subjective judgement and certainly doesn't constitute some objective, collectively actionable standard in law or any other means of social censure.
I think we have to be careful about using the word "proof" here. Regarding the examples I cited, have you watched the Majestic Ape videos or listened to her "performance"? Making jokes about having a preference for sex with children, jokes that aren't even jokes but just a kind of sick reveling in the reality of child abuse, combined with the content of those videos, isn't that enough for you? What does it prove? Only that she is acting like a deeply irresponsible and insensitive human being. But again, when placed side by side with other facts, facts highly suggestive that MA has direct knowledge of organized child abuse, then her making jokes and video references to it amounts to evidence of complicity beyond the mere "artistic" irresponsibility of glorifying it and making light of it (which is also a form of complicity).
As far as Kenneth Anger or Genesis P-Orrige go, do we really have to ask at this point? What if these men aren't artists at all but operatives using a cloak of art to operate under? How many "artists" are just that? In these cases, I'm satisfied that their at least peripheral involvement (via The Process, OTO, Manson family, etc) with organized ritual abuse at the very least entailed an awareness of it, and since that awareness hasn't stopped them profiting from their proximity to it, then, pardon mon Francais, but fuck those guys. If that's art then I'll happily spend the rest of my days running a junk store.
Sorry for the length of this. I am still working on succinct.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
guruilla » 24 Nov 2016 11:29 wrote:I haven't watched the video, but it's probably inevitable that people get confused when it comes to distinguishing between survivor art that's an essential means for a person to resolve their experiences, and art that sensationalizes, diminishes or exploits survivors' experiences (art which could also be done by survivors); and when/if abusers themselves use the art for their own titillation, or whatever, while this in no way implicates the artists who did it, it does compromise the work in other people's eyes, and there's probably no way around that. Noble's work is very obviously (to me) in the former category and there's nothing sensationalist or titillating about it. It's also pretty hard to see how abusers would get a kick out of it, unless they just enjoy being reminded of their "work." With Djurdjevic's art, it's hard to guess whether it's inspired by her own experiences as a victim, a perp, both, or neither, but I did find it had a creepily "erotic" (exploitative) feel to it. It looked like drawn records of crime scenes to me, "snuff art," and it was all-too-easy for me to imagine how perpetrators would "enjoy" having those sorts of reminders on their walls, for everyone to see, like (literal?) kill trophies.
You're asking me to pontificate on what appears to me to be an orchestrated effort to sully through association what I've spent 30 years of my life doing.
The video author is not confused, she took a great deal of time to research and create the visuals, she is putting out deliberate disinformation.
Your reading of Djurdjevic's art is yours alone, that is the function of art, it reflects what we bring to it. It is not a vehicle through which we are able to read the mind of the artist, it is a vehicle through which we come to know our own mind and experience. If you propose to construct some sort of objective evaluation system that allows you to detect the intent, as well as judge the character, of the artist in all cases, you might as well go straight to the front of the line of the autocrats who would designate and ban anything they view as degenerate art.
Here is what Djurdjevic said about the origins of imagery:
A:I read a lot, from junky novels to pure art novels, am addicted to TV who works 24 hours per day, I hardly watch but I need to have it in the room, maybe it is compilation of my thoughts that I collect through ordinary day like seeing some old man struggling with his poverty and starting to fade from the face of earth without being seen at all, or seeing another victim of paedophilia for this and other subjects unfortunately I didn’t need any imagination. Just a pure reality.
You're condemning a survivor of sexual abuse for improperly expressing her own pain. To me, that constitutes yet another violation of her.
Because she is a famous artist and you or anyone wondering about her inspiration can easily invest a few minutes to go read what she herself says about the work. I'm sorry but, it is just plain dumb to speculate when the information is right in front of you.
Stemming from her interest in the physical, emotional, and psychological aspects of pain and fear, Bourgeois was drawn to the arch of hysteria as theorized and represented by the nineteenth-century neurologist Jean Martin Charcot (1825-1893). While working at the Salpêtrière Hospital in Paris, Charcot sought to represent hysteria by documenting the performances of his female patients. The physical tension of the hysterical arch - an intense muscular contraction, resulting in immobility and paralysis of the limbs - is emblematic of an equally extreme emotional state. Bourgeois makes this highly vulnerable position even more so by suspending her male figure from the ceiling. In choosing to represent him in an attitude traditionally associated with the female, the artist transgresses the social and sexual roles assigned to women, challenging the misconception of hysteria as a female malady.
This is the road you'd lead us down. This is a comment I received in response to an attempt to urge caution when assigning too much meaning to works of art related to Pizzagate.
No.... "a group of people whose job it is to explore every aspect of the human experience, from the sublime to the bestial, through gesture and symbol." should never ever ever ever ever EVER involve hurting children....never. You can't blur the lines of good and evil under the guise of art because then literally anything goes. This is some sick shit that is appearing more and more real with every passing minute...and if it's real then it needs to stop immediately, and the "art" that accompanies it should be dug out like a root canal to make sure there's no stragglers.
That would include me and my life's work, dug out like a root canal, with no consideration whatsoever of any other complicating factor. No thanks.
They're not just Willow's fears. I've also expressed quite specifically this fear (or realization) that we have reached the War on Degenerate Art phase of the Nazification of America... and you don't have to envision black-jacketed storm troopers with deaths' head insignias marching "suspect" artists to camps in order to recognize that trans-cultural frisson.
As an artist, myself (nowhere near as accomplished as PW), and as an observer of these tides as they have washed in and out since the mid-1980's, I can tell you that my antennae have never buzzed so ferociously as they are now.
Am I promoting, fetishizing or celebrating torture in the below "work"? (I put it in scare quotes because it really never moved beyond the status of experiment, in both content and medium.)
What if you saw the video and had no idea I had made it, or came across it out of context?
There's nothing there that rings alarm bells for me, tho I can certainly relate to the mood and tone of it (reminds me of some "Synesthesia Cinema" videos I did a couple of years back, tho these are lighter in tone). As a contrast, here's a video by a guy I know peripherally, who I asked to be on my podcast. That was before I saw this video; after I saw it, I expressed my reservations and in the end we never did the podcast.
To be clear, I didn't see this video as evidence of the guy's involvement with torture programs, but I found it off-putting enough not to feel comfortable promoting him or his work.
I can see two main questions regarding any piece of artwork: 1) does it glorify, promote, or fetishize people's suffering (the Exceptor video ^^^ fits into this class, even tho I am pretty sure the guy didn't mean it that way). 2) Is it evidence of the artist's involvement with these things? With survivors, it gets complicated because (as seems to be the case with Djurdjevic), if an artist was a victim of these things then they themselves may be confused as to whether they are, or were, complicit with the abuses suffered, and even of whether they may have committed acts themselves (I can relate to this).
Harvey & slomo made the necessary distinction between artists & their patrons. At the same time slomo (I think) was hinting at how that relationship could itself be one of abuser to abused (MK-ULTRA as a whole organized patronage of future artists?), since patrons somewhat create the artists they patronize via commissions and the like.
The Pizzagate thing seems to play into PW's (probably well-grounded) fears about an artist-purge because it presents Podesta's taste in art as evidence of his sexual-criminal proclivities. I think this is perfectly valid, but not because it's as simple as: someone likes paintings of abused children so they are likely to be a child abuser (they may be just as likely to have been abused). It only becomes evidence in juxtaposition with other forms of evidence that do point to the latter conclusion. This can very quickly start to look like a person is being put on trial for his or her taste in art, which can then extend to the artists themselves for creating such scary stuff, and so on. I have no decent suggestion as to how to prevent people making these sorts of crazy leaps, except to say that they are based on panic fight-flight reactions & not good reasoning, so these people are probably going to be making these kinds of leaps one way or another anyway. Such kill the messenger/blame the victim leaps of emotional "logic" happen regardless of how carefully we try to protect ourselves from them, because people are only looking for something to attack once their discomfort levels become unmanageable
The main lesson here for an individual artist seems to be, be responsible. There is a fine line between turning one's suffering into art as a form of catharsis and self-transformation, and turning it into currency for others to get their kicks (and justification) from. But there always has been a fine line. Maybe losing sight of that line is one of the primary causes for the sort of "underground" abuse-culture that's emerging into view via Pizzagate (IMO).
Project Willow wrote:Do you have proof that any of those artists is intentionally promoting or celebrating their complicity in ritual abuse through their work? Do they explicitly state this in their manifestos? Otherwise, you're making the same subjective presumptions about character and intent that you were of the other artists we discussed. I have no problem whatsoever criticizing their works on a number of bases, including any deleterious impact on audiences, but I have no illusions that this would be my own subjective judgement and certainly doesn't constitute some objective, collectively actionable standard in law or any other means of social censure.
I think we have to be careful about using the word "proof" here. Regarding the examples I cited, have you watched the Majestic Ape videos or listened to her "performance"? Making jokes about having a preference for sex with children, jokes that aren't even jokes but just a kind of sick reveling in the reality of child abuse, combined with the content of those videos, isn't that enough for you? What does it prove? Only that she is acting like a deeply irresponsible and insensitive human being. But again, when placed side by side with other facts, facts highly suggestive that MA has direct knowledge of organized child abuse, then her making jokes and video references to it amounts to evidence of complicity beyond the mere "artistic" irresponsibility of glorifying it and making light of it (which is also a form of complicity).
As far as Kenneth Anger or Genesis P-Orrige go, do we really have to ask at this point? What if these men aren't artists at all but operatives using a cloak of art to operate under? How many "artists" are just that? In these cases, I'm satisfied that their at least peripheral involvement (via The Process, OTO, Manson family, etc) with organized ritual abuse at the very least entailed an awareness of it, and since that awareness hasn't stopped them profiting from their proximity to it, then, pardon mon Francais, but fuck those guys. If that's art then I'll happily spend the rest of my days running a junk store.
Sorry for the length of this. I am still working on succinct.
slomo » Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:27 pm wrote:The videos are useless at best, but possibly disinfo if they are filled with claims that can easily be proven false (e.g. Kim Noble). That's why I think the text summaries, with URLs supporting the claims, are the best way to become informed on the topic.
Note, however, that I still think there is a non-negligible probability that this could all be a psy-op (built on top of some real evidence) designed to discredit any news about pedophilia and human-trafficking rings, and to link the topic with right wing hysteria.
My instincts at present given the very odd facts involving the Clintons' "charity"/work dovetailing with known abusers and frankly given my own reading of history are leading me to assume this is a psyop embellishment of something real. I interpret pizzagate as a warning, perhaps the explanation for the DNC's complete silence on possible election irregularities and their cuddling up to the new boss as someone who deserves a chance. Quite the reverse of their rhetoric from even a month ago.
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore: fecemi la divina podestate, la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore. :: ::
S.H.C.R.
I am now section 12'd. AGAIN. 2008 redux. 36 hours to go on observation window.
Facts:
Pizzagate is...REAL, ALMOST 100% REAL.
Boston Latin School has been home to a satanic cult intent on desecrating classic American institutions.
Tom Kratman definitely wants to execute six million leftists and one million right wingers.
Tom Kratman is part of the team in my family who are doing this to me, involuntarily committing me. Perhaps the chief of it. He was involved in 2008, too.
But, then again, he might just want to crush the infamy of childraping babyeaters running the world. Could you blame him? He is not a Nazi. (Read the END of Watch on Rhine) He is not a racist. (See his wife, children, friends at Latin, and history during Army) But, but...he ISSSSSSSS a fascist.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight, that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
